FBI Hired Social Media Surveillance Firm That Labeled Black Lives Matter Organizers “Threat Actors”
The FBI has come under scrutiny for its use of social media surveillance tools and its reliance on outside contractors to monitor online threats. One such contractor, ZeroFox, was responsible for labeling peaceful Black Lives Matter protest leaders DeRay McKesson and Johnetta Elzie as “threat actors” in 2015. Despite no evidence of criminal activity, ZeroFox identified McKesson and Elzie as posing a “high severity” physical threat.
ZeroFox has since defended its actions, stating that it has made significant improvements to its collections, analysis, and labeling of alerts. The company now ensures human analysis of every alert to ensure that only legitimate threats are flagged. However, the fact that the FBI hired ZeroFox in 2021 raises concerns about the bureau’s approach to monitoring social media content.
This revelation comes from a new Senate report that highlights the intelligence community’s failure to anticipate the January 6, 2021, uprising at the U.S. Capitol. The report reveals that the FBI’s authorities to surveil social media content are much broader than previously acknowledged. It also shows the FBI’s reliance on outside companies like ZeroFox to filter and analyze social media data.
ZeroFox’s $14 million contract with the FBI for “FBI social media alerting” replaced a similar contract with another firm, Dataminr, which also scrutinized racial justice movements like Black Lives Matter. Both companies have been accused of subjecting these movements to web surveillance on behalf of law enforcement agencies.
The FBI has previously denied having the power to monitor social media conversations, citing First Amendment protections. However, the Senate report concludes that the FBI mischaracterized its authorities and that its powers to monitor social media are quite broad. The report reveals that the FBI sifts through vast amounts of social media content searching for potential threats.
While the FBI and its contractors claim that their intent is not to monitor individual social media activity, the report suggests otherwise. The use of pre-defined search terms to identify potential threats based on keywords can lead to the continuous flagging of posts from specific accounts. This amounts to monitoring specific users, even if it is not done directly.
The report also highlights the FBI’s heavy reliance on automated social media monitoring tools. The temporary loss of access to such software prior to the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol caused panic among bureau officials. The report includes internal FBI communications that express concern over the loss of a social media tool that saved time by providing notification alerts when posts hit on key terms.
Civil libertarians have cautioned against the use of automated social media surveillance tools due to concerns about the infringement on free speech and the potential for undue scrutiny of harmless posts. Companies like ZeroFox and Dataminr have been criticized for their broad definitions of what constitutes a threat, which can lead to the monitoring of nonviolent, constitutionally protected speech.
The FBI’s reliance on outside contractors like ZeroFox and Dataminr raises questions about the accuracy and impartiality of their monitoring practices. These companies’ designations of what is important or constitutes a threat can heavily influence government agencies’ actions and priorities. The mutual dependence between these contractors and government agencies further complicates the issue.
In conclusion, the FBI’s hiring of ZeroFox, a social media surveillance firm that labeled Black Lives Matter organizers as “threat actors,” highlights the bureau’s approach to monitoring online threats. The revelations from the Senate report raise concerns about the FBI’s broad authorities to surveil social media content and its reliance on outside contractors for filtering and analysis. The use of automated social media surveillance tools also raises questions about the potential infringement on free speech and the accuracy of threat assessments.